Parental Sensitive

Infant and Child Development
Inf. Child Dev. 12: 2751 (2003)

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).
DOI: 10.1002/icd.335
The Effects of Early Relational

Antecedents and Other Factors on
the Parental Sensitivity of Mothers
and Fathers
Diane Pelchata,*, Jocelyn Bissona, Caroline Boisa
and Jean-Fran-cois Saucierb
a
Universit!e de Montr!eal, Facult!e des Sciences Infirmi"eres, C.P. 6128, Succ.

Centre-Ville, QC, Canada, H3C-3J7
b
Universit!e de Montr!eal, Facult!e de M!edecine, D!epartement de Psychiatrie,
C.P. 6128, Succ. Centre-Ville, Montr!eal, QC, Canada, H3C-3J7
This study examines the effect of early relational antecedents

(ERA, i.e. the quality of parenting parents recalled receiving as
children), parenting stress, marital stress, socio-economic factors
and childrens characteristics (gender and disability condition) on
the parental sensitivity of mothers and fathers. The sample
consisted of 116 mothers and 84 fathers of 117 eighteen month old
children drawn from a larger longitudinal study on the adaptation of parents to a child with a disability. Thirty-four children
were diagnosed with Down syndrome (DS), 51 with a cleft lip
and/or palate (CLP), and 32 were non-disabled children. Multiple
regression analyses reveal that mothers sensitivity is best
predicted by her level of education and family income, whereas
fathers sensitivity is best predicted by their ERA, marital stress,
family income and the childs disability condition. Mothers with
more education and a greater family income displayed a greater
sensitivity to their children, as did fathers who perceive less
marital stress, those with a greater family income and those who
perceived their parents as less controlling. Also, fathers of
children with DS displayed less sensitivity for their children
than fathers of children with CLP or fathers of non-disabled
children. These results concord with many studies about the
importance of socio-economic factors, ERA, marital stress,
parents gender and childrens factors in the understanding of
parental sensitivity. Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Key words: parental sensitivity; early relational antecedents; disability; down syndrome; cleft lip and palate; children; marital stress
*Correspondence to: Universite de Montreal, Faculte des Sciences Infirmie`res, C.P. 6128,
Succ. Centre-Ville, QC, Canada, H3C-3J7
Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
28
D. Pelchat et al.
Parental sensitivity is broadly defined as the parents ability to perceive,

to interpret accurately and to respond promptly and appropriately to his
childs signals (Nicholls and Kirkland, 1996). Although the definition may vary
somewhat, there is a large consensus about the great importance of parental
sensitivity in the establishment and quality of the parent-child relationship
(Smith and Pederson, 1988; Vereijken et al., 1997). In particular, Ainsworth and
colleagues (Ainsworth et al., 1978) found that maternal sensitivity during the
infants first year of life strongly predicted a secure attachment relationship
between the infant and the mother. Many studies have shown a link between
parental sensitivity and childrens cognitive development (Bee et al., 1982; Blasco
et al., 1990), temperament (Seifer et al., 1996), and socio-affective development
(Ainsworth et al., 1978). Parental sensitivity also influences early childparent
relationships which are believed in most theories of child development to be the
foundation that will guide the evolving adult in his relationships with others
(Biringen, 1990; Waters et al., 1979), including those with his or her own children
(Fish, 1993; Main et al., 1985; Eichberg, 1986).
These observations underscore the importance of gaining a better understanding of the factors related to parental sensitivity. In the last two decades,
many studies have examined the antecedents of parenting, and to some extent,
the antecedents of parental sensitivity. Although a number of factors of parental
sensitivity have been identified, much remains to be known with respect to the
dynamics and antecedents of parental sensitivity. Some ambiguity remains
concerning the role of some alleged factors of parental sensitivity, and much work
needs to be done regarding the understanding of their relative importance and
the ways in which these factors interact to influence parental sensitivity. Also, as
most studies have been concerned with mothers, further research is needed to
understand the proper dynamics mothers and fathers parental sensitivity.
The main objective of this study is to examine the role of a number of factors on
the sensitivity of mothers and fathers of 18-month old infants with or without a
disability. A multivariate modelling approach was taken for that purpose in order
to account for the intricate relationships between the various potential factors of
sensitivity. Following Belskys (1984) theoretical model of parenting, we have
examined three types of factors: parent-related factors, child-related factors and
contextual sources of stress and support. The parent-related factors that are
included in the analyses are parents early relational antecedents (ERA),
parenting stress, depression, marital stress and gender. Child-related factors
include gender and the disability condition of the child. Contextual factors
include parents family income, the level of education and the status of single
parent, which, in the present situation, might be more accurately termed socioeconomic factors. The empirical support for each of these factors and the
hypotheses are presented next. As the studies on the factors of parental
sensitivity specifically are still relatively scarce, we have considered the main
factors that were shown to play a significant role in parental sensitivity or in
related constructs, such as the quality of parenting and parental involvement.
PARENT-RELATED FACTORS
Parents Early Relational Antecedents
The hypothesis of the influence of parents ERA on their parenting, or more simply
of an intergenerational transmission of parenting practices, was elaborated to its
Inf. Child Dev. 12: 2751 (2003)
Factors of Mothers and Fathers Sensitivity
29
fullest degree in the theory of attachment (Ainsworth and Bowlby, 1991). In this
theory, it is conceived that during the childs early interactions with his parents,
the child elaborates internal working models that enable him to interpret and
anticipate the behaviours of his social partners and to guide his attitudes and
behaviours towards them. Parental sensitivity is believed to be the main
determinant of these internal models (Bretherton, 1987). In turn, these models
are also hypothesised to eventually guide the individuals interactions with his
own children (Main et al., 1985). Thus, continuity is hypothesised between the ERA
of parents and their parenting behaviours, including their parental sensitivity.
The well-documented association between abusive parenting practices and
parents own personal experience of abuse as children indirectly supports the
hypothesis (for a review, see Belsky and Vondra, 1989; Whipple and Richey, 1997;
Emery and Laumann-Billings, 1998). But, accumulating evidence seems to
confirm the same kind of intergenerational transmission with respect to less
extreme parenting practices. For instance, Main and Goldwyn (1984) showed,
among a sample of normal motherinfant dyads, a strong association between
mothers perception of rejection by their own mother in childhood and the
rejection of their own infant. Also, studies based on the attachment paradigm
have generally shown a significant concordance between mothers type of
attachment to their own and that of their children to them (for a review see
Bretherton, 1990). Mothers identified as autonomous on the basis of their
attachment to their parents were generally more sensitive towards their child than
those identified as non-autonomous (Crowell and Feldman, 1988; Haft and Slade,
1989; Fish, 1993). Similar findings have also been found for fathers indicating a
link between fathers ERA and their parenting practices (Van Ijzendoorn et al.,
1991; Cohn et al., 1992; see Volling and Belsky, 1992 for negative findings).
Studies that were not directly based on attachment theory using slightly
different measures of ERA have also found evidence of an intergenerational
transmission of parenting practices. In one study conducted by Biringen (1990),
mothers recollections of acceptance, overprotection and encouragement of autonomy by their parents were shown to be highly and positively related to their
maternal sensitivity and the dyadic harmony with their 1118 month old infants.
Similarly, Simons et al. (1993) have given evidence of a link between mothers and
fathers parenting practices (supportive parenting or harsh discipline) and their
own parents parenting practices. Considering the sum of these results, we expect
that fathers and mothers ERA will be predictive of their parental sensitivity.
Parenting Stress
Parenting stress is frequently addressed in studies on parentchild interactions.
In the large majority, these studies have demonstrated that parenting stress is a
disrupter of parenting practices (Webster-Stratton, 1990). This was shown both
with samples of families in the general population (McKay et al., 1996) and with
samples of parents of disabled children of various ages (e.g. Darke and Goldberg,
1994; Girolametto and Tannock, 1994; Onufrak et al., 1995). In these studies, the
stress related to infants adaptability, the parents acceptance of the child, their
sense of parental competence and perception of role restriction were particularly
predictive of their response to their disabled child. Although some studies have
reported negative findings (Denham and Moser, 1994; Harrison and MagillEvans, 1996), the bulk seem to support the hypothesis of a negative association
between parenting stress and parental sensitivity. Therefore, we expect to find
such a relation both for fathers and mothers.
Inf. Child Dev. 12: 2751 (2003)
30
D. Pelchat et al.
Depression
Psychological depression in mothers and fathers has been shown to be related
to the quality of parenting (Grossman et al., 1988; Gelfand and Teti, 1990; Simons
et al., 1992, 1993) and more specifically to parental sensitivity (Cohn et al. 1986;
Wilfong et al., 1991; Jameson et al., 1997). In Jameson et al.0 s study, depressed
mothers displayed less interactive co-ordination with their infant than
non-depressed mothers, and were less likely to repair interrupted interactions
with their infant. In Cohn et al.0 s study, depressed mothers were more likely
to behave insensitively with their infants, in a hostile and intrusive manner,
or with detached withdrawal. Evidence from other studies suggests that
other dimensions of parents0 mental health are also related to parental sensitivity,
such as parents psychological well-being (Grossman et al., 1980; Broom, 1994),
anxiety (Nover et al., 1984), and affective distress (Atkinson et al., 1995).
Such results are of particular concern for children who already are at
developmental risk from biological conditions, especially when one considers
that the chronic stresses of living with a disabled child have been linked to
the presence of depressive affect in mothers of handicapped children (Breslau
and Prabucki, 1987). From these findings, we expect to find a negative
relation between mothers and fathers scores on depression and their parental
sensitivity.
Marital Stress
Marital stress has been shown in many studies to be a significant deteriorating
factor of the quality of parenting, of parental involvement and of parental
sensitivity (for a review, see Cummings and O0 Reilly, 1997; Coiro and Emery,
1998). For instance, Cox and colleagues (1999) found that both the sensitivity of
parents and their reported involvement to their infants suffered when marriages
were more conflicting and parents perceptions of their marriage were less
positive. Alternatively, other studies have demonstrated a positive relation
between harmonious marriages or the quality of instrumental and emotional
support among spouses and the quality of parenting or the parental sensitivity
(Dickie, 1987; Graham, 1987; Cox et al., 1989).
In contrast, some authors have not found the expected relation between marital
stress and parental sensitivity. In Brooms (1994) study, mothers who indicated
less interaction with their spouse and who perceived that their husband
participated less in family life were more sensitive to their infants. In the study
of Goldberg and Easterbrooks (1984), fathers harmonious marital interaction
was positively related with parental sensitivity; but for mothers, better marital
adjustment was significantly correlated with less maternal sensitivity. Notwithstanding these results, the bulk of the findings lead us to expect a
negative association between mothers and fathers marital stress and parental
sensitivity.
Parents Gender
In the large majority of studies on parental involvement and sensitivity, mothers
were the object of concern much more often than fathers. However, the last two
decades have witnessed a sustained effort to fill this gap and gain a better
understanding of fathers role in childrens development (for a review, see Lamb,
1997, Pleck, 1997, and NICHD, 2000). In general, the findings of the few studies
that compared fathers and mothers on sensitivity-related dimensions seem to
Inf. Child Dev. 12: 2751 (2003)
31
indicate that mothers are more sensitive, responsive and involved with their
child than fathers (i.e., Power and Parke, 1983; Belsky et al., 1984; Power, 1985;
Heerman et al., 1994; Pleck, 1997). For instance, the interaction style of fathers
has been reported to be faster-paced, with less verbalisations and more
interference with the childs ongoing activities and, more generally, less
finely tuned to the childs cues and level of understanding than that of mothers
(Rondal, 1980; Power, 1985; McCollum, 1988). Yet, contrasting with these results,
some well-conducted studies found no difference in parental sensitivity between
mothers and fathers (Brachfeld-Child, 1986; Broom, 1994), or found relatively
few differences against a background of much similarity (McConachie and
Michell, 1985). From the sum of these findings, we expect, with some degree of
reserve, that mothers will show a greater sensitivity towards their child than
fathers.
To our knowledge, no study has considered the issue of the differential impact
of the various factors on mothers and fathers sensitivity. However, Doherty et al.
(1998) contend that fathering is influenced, to a greater extent than mothering, by
various factors in the family and the community. This was shown for instance
with regards to the impact of unemployment (Elder et al., 1985), and the quality
of the marital relationship (Belsky and Volling, 1987). It remains to be seen,
however, if these types of factors also have a greater impact on fathers sensitivity
than that of mothers. It also remains to be seen if other types of factors, such as
childrens characteristics, including childrens disabilities, also differentially
affect mothers and fathers sensitivity.
CHILD-RELATED FACTORS
A disability in the child is generally considered to have a considerable impact on
the parent-child relationship (Hanzlik, 1989; Pelchat, 1993; Lamb and LaumanBillings, 1997). Mothers of disabled children are reported to be physically more
distant (Richard, 1986), to engage less often in interactions (Wasserman and
Allen, 1985) and to display lower quality interactions with their child (Eheart,
1982; Berger and Cunningham, 1983). They also issue more directives and
controlling behaviours (Huntington et al., 1987) and take more initiatives in the
interactions (Eheart, 1982; Petersen and Sherrod, 1982; Stoneman et al., 1983;
Brooks-Gunn and Lewis, 1984). Although some authors (e.g. Becker et al., 1997;
McConnachie, 1989) have rightly questioned the assumption that greater
directiveness in parents of infants with a disability should be taken as a sign of
lower sensitivity, the bulk of accumulated findings, especially those concerning
other aspects of parental sensitivity, still lead us to expect lower levels of
sensitivity among parents of disabled children compared to parents of nondisabled children.
The association between childs gender and parental sensitivity-related
constructs have also been examined in many studies. Most find an interaction
between childs gender and parents gender on parenting behaviours. For
instance, fathers have been reported to be more involved with sons than with
daughters (Barnett and Baruch, 1987; Harris and Morgan, 1991; Blair et al., 1994).
However, more recent studies have shown that such gender differences were
greater with older children and were generally not significant with younger
children (Biringen et al., 1994; Broom, 1994; Tulananda et al., 1994). From these
results, we do not expect to find any difference in parental sensitivity according
to the gender of young children.
Inf. Child Dev. 12: 2751 (2003)
32
D. Pelchat et al.
SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS
Socio-economic (SE) factors have been recognised by several authors to play an
important role on parental behaviours (e.g. Gecas, 1979; Floyd and Saitzyk, 1992;
Gerson, 1993). In his literature review, Gecas identified several empirical
associations between SE status and parenting practices, supporting Kohns
argument (1977) that higher social positions are more likely to value selfdirection, self-control and responsibility in their children. In the same vein,
Simons et al. (1993) found that mothers and fathers education was positively
related to supportive parenting and negatively related to harsh discipline.
Various studies have shown a positive correlation between the mothers level of
education and her sensitivity towards her child with or without a disability (e.g.
Blasco et al., 1990; Hyche et al., 1992; McConnachie, 1989). In Onufrak et al.s study
(1995), SE status was identified as the single most predictive factor of mothers
quality of involvement. These findings lead us to expect a positive association
between SE indicators and parental sensitivity.
METHOD
Sample
The sample consisted of 116 mothers and 84 fathers of 117 eighteen month old
children. Thirty-four children were diagnosed with Down syndrome (DS), 51
with cleft lip and/or palate (CLP) and 32 were non-disabled children (ND). The
participants were recruited at the birth of the infant by nurses throughout 14
urban and semi-urban hospitals in the Montreal and Qu!ebec city areas (Qu!ebec,
Canada) from September 1993 to April 1995. The inclusion criteria required that
the infant was living with both parents and was not adopted, that the parents
could communicate in French and were living within 90 min driving distance
from the recruitment area. This sample came from a larger longitudinal study on
the adaptation of parents to an infant with a physical disability (Pelchat et al.,
1998). In total, 272 respondents from 143 families participated in the larger study.
Data were collected at three points in time: when the children were 6, 12 and 18
months old. The present sample is constituted of the parents who responded to
the third wave of data collection}the only stage where the measures of ERA
were collected. From the 272 respondents of the initial study, 240 responded to
the third wave, of which 200 (116 mothers and 84 fathers) completed the
measures of parental involvement and ERA.
An analysis of the factors associated with attrition was conducted. Variables
that were examined included childrens gender and disability, parents age,
gender, education, income and number of children, parents sensitivity and
parenting stress at T1 and T2 (i.e. when children were 6 and 12 months of age).
Chi-square and independent samples T-tests were used for that purpose and all
analyses, except the one pertaining to parents gender, were conducted separately
for mothers and fathers. Among all considered variables, only two were
significantly associated with attrition: parents gender and mothers education.
From the 143 mothers included in the larger study at T1, 81% (i.e. 116) responded
at T3 and were included in the final sample, compared to 65% (n = 84) of the 129
fathers included in the study at T1 (w2(1, N = 200) = 8.9, p50.01). Among all
mothers in the larger study, 66% of those who had not completed high school
were included in the final sample, compared to 87% of those who had completed
Inf. Child Dev. 12: 2751 (2003)
33
high school and 85% of those with a college degree or more (w2(2, N = 200) = 7.2,
p50.05).
The age of mothers in the final sample ranged from 17 to 40 years (M = 29.4,
S.D. = 5.2) and that of fathers, from 20 to 52 years (M = 31.7, S.D. = 6.2). The level
of education was relatively high for both mothers and fathers, with 54% of
mothers and 51% of fathers reporting post-high school education. Families had
on average two children (S.D. = 0.9) and 39% of them had only one. The annual
family income was under $30,000 (Can.) for 37% of the families, between $30,000
and $60,000 for 33% of them, and over $ 60,000 for 30% of them. Among the 112
mothers participating in the study, 12 (10.3%) were single mothers.
None of the children involved in the study was premature but some had a
medical condition secondary to their primary diagnosis. Among the 34 children
with DS, 15 also had a congenital heart disease. In all cases, the medical records
established that DS was the primary diagnosis of the child. This proportion of
children with both disabilities was expected since children with DS have a
4060% incidence of heart disease (Rogers and Roizen, 1991). Among the 51
babies with CLP in our sample, 11 were born with a cleft lip, 29 had a cleft palate
and 11 had both a cleft lip and a cleft palate. At the age of three to four months, all
babies with a cleft lip had corrective surgery of the lips, and at 1213 months all
babies with a cleft palate had corrective surgery of the palate. Overall, a
hospitalisation during the last previous six months, when the child was between
12 and 18 months old, was required for 12 children with DS, 11 children with CLP
and one non-disabled child.
Procedure
Ethical standards of the participating hospitals were followed. Parents were
encountered at home by a trained nurse or a trained psychologist when their
baby was eighteen months old. Each parent was asked to filled out the selfadministered questionnaire individually, and clarification or assistance was
provided when needed. The questionnaire was in French, and included validated
scales for the most part. In addition, a procedure involving the videotape
recording of each parent in interaction with his or her child during a play
sequence was conducted for the proper assessment of parental sensitivity.
Measures
Parental Sensitivity
Reflecting the complexity of the concept of parental sensitivity and the variety
of studies that examined that construct, the measurement of parental sensitivity
has greatly varied across studies (for a review, see Nicholls and Kirkland, 1996;
Seifer et al., 1996). In the present study, parental sensitivity was measured with
the Parent /Caregiver Involvement Scale (P/CIS, Farran et al., 1986). Contrary to
other sensitivity scales, such as those developed by Ainsworth et al. (1978) and
Isabella (1993) which used variants of a single scale that required a single
judgement on a Likert scale regarding the degree of sensitivity over an extended
period of time, the P/CIS has the advantage of measuring various components of
sensitivity and of being administered and scored in a relatively short period of
time. These advantages of the P/CIS also lead other authors (Seifer et al., 1996) to
measure sensitivity with this instrument. The P/CIS assesses a parents
interactive behaviours towards his or her child during a 1020 min videotaped
Inf. Child Dev. 12: 2751 (2003)
34
D. Pelchat et al.
play sequence. Eleven types of parental behaviours are assessed: physical

involvement, verbal involvement, responsiveness, play interaction, teaching,
structuring of child activity, structuring of specific behaviours, sequencing of
activities, reinforcements, expression of negative emotion, and goal setting. Each
behaviour is assessed with respect to three dimensions: (1) Quantity, how often
the parent displays the behaviour; (2) Quality, how much warmth and sensitivity
is expressed by the behaviour; (3) Appropriateness, how well matched the
behaviour is to the childs developmental level, interest and motor abilities. Each
dimension for each behaviour is scored on a 15 scale with specific behavioural
anchors on odd numbers.
The P/CIS was administered at the parents home by a trained nurse or a
trained psychologist. Each parent was asked in turn to play with his child for a
period of 10 min, where parentchild interactions were videotaped. No standard
set of toys was provided; each parent was instructed to play with his child as he
normally does. The scale was scored later from the videotape by each
interviewer. For purpose of reliability assessment, 20% of the material was
scored twice by each interviewer and 25% of all material was scored by the two
interviewers. The intraclass correlation coefficients for the inter-rater and intrarater agreement were over 0.90 both for the scale overall and for each type of
behaviour.
In most studies where the scale has been used, the authors recommendation to
calculate a mean score for each dimension was followed. Many studies have
reported strong indices of reliability, either in the form of internal consistency
coefficients, inter-rater reliabilities or test-retest reliabilities (Blasco et al. 1990;
Wilfong et al., 1991; Onufrak et al., 1995). To our knowledge, no study has
examined the factorial structure of the scale or has demonstrated the
discriminant validity of the three subscales. Our own factor analyses revealed
a structure comprising only two factors: the first, which explained 49% of the
total variance, included all ratings of quality and appropriateness; the second,
which explained 14% of the total variance, was exclusively composed of quantity
ratings. Such two-factor structure supports the observations of some authors who
used the P/CIS (e.g., Blasco et al., 1990; Tendland, 1996) and who decided to
combine the two scales of quality and appropriateness because of their strong
correlation. As the quality and appropriateness of the behaviour are more central
to the notion of parental sensitivity than is the frequency of the behaviour (Farran
et al., 1986; Barnard and Kelly, 1990; Seifer et al., 1996) especially when the later is
estimated from a ten-minutes play sequence, only one measure of parental
sensitivity was calculated from the P/CIS: the one composed of all ratings of
quality and appropriateness. The scores were calculated as the average of the
items involved, with higher scores indicating a greater sensitivity. The alpha
coefficient of the scale (with our data) was 0.92.
Early Relational Antecedents
Early relational antecedents were measured with the Parental Bonding
Instrument (PBI, Parker et al., 1979). For the purpose of the study, we have
translated the scale using a backward translation procedure. The PBI comprises
two sets of 25 Likert-type items pertaining to the childhood (016 years)
experience of the respondent with his parents, one regarding his mother and the
other, his father. The scale was initially designed to measure care and
overprotection, and also the degree to which respondents had experienced
warmth in their relationship with their parents, or had feelings of having been
Inf. Child Dev. 12: 2751 (2003)
35
overprotected. In their initial study, the authors reported evidence of a two-factor

structure corresponding to such measures. Similar findings were reported by
other authors (i.e. Arrindell and van der Ende, 1984). However, more recent
findings give good evidence for a factorial structure comprised of three factors:
care, denial of psychological autonomy (control) and encouragement of
behavioural freedom (Murphy et al., 1997).
Our own analyses strongly support a similar three-factor solution. Yet, that
structure remains closely similar to that of Parker et al. (1979), with the first factor
corresponding to the same care dimension as that of Parker et al. and the two
other factors representing more or less the two poles of the overprotection factor
described by Parker et al., autonomy and control. The Care factor included items
such as [My mother/father]. . .appeared to understand my problems and
worries, Was affectionate to me, Enjoyed talking things over with me.
Autonomy included items such as Let me decide things for myself, Gave me as
much freedom as I wanted. and Control included items such as Tried to control
everything I did, and Invaded my privacy. This factor solution was very stable
across different subsamples (males, females, parents of children with DS, parents
of children with CLP or parents of non-disabled children) and with respect to
both respondents mothers and fathers. The solution explained from 53% to 59%
of the total variance, which was around 10% more than the two-factor solution.
Alpha coefficients were quite high for each construct: respectively 0.92, 0.82 and
0.81 for respondents perceptions of care, autonomy and control by their mothers,
and 0.92, 0.83 and 0.76 for respondents perceptions of their fathers. Combined
measures were also created by aggregating, for each dimension, the items for the
two parents. The alphas for the same three dimensions were 0.95, 0.87 and 0.83.
Parenting Stress
The Parenting Stress Index (PSI) (Abidin, 1990) is a screening and diagnostic
instrument evaluating the intensity of stress in various dimensions of the parent
child system. The PSI has been validated in many studies and with various
populations including French ones (for a review, see Lacharit!e et al., 1992). From
the 13 subscales of the PSI, five were administered to parents for reasons of their
applicability to parents of children between 6 and 18 months of age, and four of
those five were retained for analyses because of their adequate internal
consistency: (1) Acceptance (7 items, e.g. My child does a few things which
bother me a great deal.); (2) Adaptability (11 items, e.g. Compared to the average
child, my child has a great deal of difficulty in getting used to changes in
schedules or changes around the house.); (3) Competence (13 items, e.g. I feel that
I am successful most of the times when I try to get my child to do or not do
something.); (4) Role restriction (7 items, e.g. I feel trapped by my responsibilities
as a parent.). Each measure was calculated by taking the mean of the constituting
items (with scores for positive items previously reversed). Scores could vary from
1 to 5, with greater scores indicating a greater level of parenting stress. In the
present sample, the alphas for the four subscales varied from 0.70 to 0.81.
Depression
Depression was measured with the Depression subscale of the IDESPQ14
(Pr!eville et al., 1992), a French translated and validated short form of the
Psychiatric Symptom Index (Ilfeld, 1976). This consists of 5 items describing
different feelings or psychological states for which the parents were to indicate
the frequency of occurrence in the last seven days: (1) Did you feel desperate
Inf. Child Dev. 12: 2751 (2003)
36
D. Pelchat et al.
thinking about the future ? (2) Did you feel lonely ? (3) Did you feel discouraged
or have the blues ? (4) Did you feel bored or not interested in anything ? (5) Did
you cry easily or did you feel on the verge of crying ? Response options were: (1)
Never ; (2) From time to time ; (3) Quite often ; (4) Very often. In the current study,
the alpha coefficient for depression was 0.84.
Marital Stress
Marital stress was measured using a four-item unvalidated scale: (1) In the last
six months, I had difficulties to accept that my spouse expresses anger towards
our family situation. (2) In the last six months, I had difficulties to accept that my
spouse expresses sadness towards our family situation. (3) In the last six months,
fights are more frequent between my spouse and me. (4) In the last six months,
we do not have any more activities together. Responses were given on a fourpoint Likert scale that ranged from Totally disagree to Totally agree. The alpha
coefficient of the scale with our data was 0.70.
Socio-Economic Variables
Two questions in the self-administered questionnaire were used to assess
family income and education. Both variables were used as ordinal and
categorical predictors. Family income includes eight levels: (1) less than $10
000 (CAN); (2) $10 000 to $19 999 ; (3) $20 000 to $29 999 ; (4) $30 000 to $39 999 ;
(5) $40 000 to $49 999 ; (6) $50 000 to $59 999 ; (7) $60 000 to $70 000 ; (8) more than
$70 000. Responses were also regrouped in three categories: (1) low income: less
than $30 000 ; (2) medium level income: from $30 000 to $59 999 ; (3) high income:
$60 000 or more. Education also includes 8 levels: (1) uncompleted primary
education; (2) completed primary education; (3) uncompleted secondary
education; (4) completed secondary education; (5); uncompleted college
education (6); college degree (7); uncompleted university degree (8) university
degree. Responses were also combined in three categories: (1) low education: uncompleted secondary education or less; (2) medium level education:
completed secondary education; (3) higher education: a college degree or more.
RESULTS
Descriptive Analyses
Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations of the sensitivity measure
and the continuous predictors of parental sensitivity by gender with their
corresponding independent and paired-T statistics. Both approaches to T-test
were presented in order to compare mothers and fathers, first on a global and
inclusive basis (i.e. including single-parent mothers), second, on a family
wise basis taking into account the correlation between spouses responses.
Overall, mothers and fathers responses were quite similar. When compared
on a familywise basis, the only significant difference related to depression, and
showed that mothers had higher depression scores than fathers. When compared
as groups (including single-parent mothers), a few significant differences
emerged between mothers and fathers: compared to fathers, mothers reported
less perceived care from their own mothers, less autonomy from their mothers or
their two parents, and reported higher depression scores. As evidenced by their
average scores (3.94.0 on a 15 scale), both mothers and fathers were in general
Inf. Child Dev. 12: 2751 (2003)
37
Table 1. Mean and standard deviations on sensitivity and continuous predictors by

gender, with independant and paired T tests and Pearson correlation coefficients
Mothers
(n=116)
Fathers
(n=84)
S.D.
S.D.
T
(ind.)
T
(paired)
Parental sensitivity
Early relational antecedents
Perc. care from the mother
Perc. care from the father
Perc. care from both parents
Perc. autonomy from the mother
Perc. autonomy from the father
Perc. autonomy from both parents
Perc. control from the mother
Perc. control from the father
Perc. control from both parents
3.91
0.72
3.97
0.59
0.7
3.00
2.79
2.90
2.68
2.71
2.70
1.94
2.00
1.97
0.82
0.80
0.66
0.74
0.73
0.62
0.66
0.61
0.54
3.25
2.71
2.98
2.93
2.88
2.89
1.94
1.86
1.90
0.56
0.65
0.50
0.56
0.69
0.57
0.59
0.57
0.51
2.4*
0.7
1.0
2.5*
1.5
2.1*
0.0
1.6
0.8
1.5
1.2
0.2
1.6
1.0
1.0
0.2
1.4
0.9
Parenting stress
Childs acceptance related stress
Childs adaptability related stress
Sense of competence related stress
Role restriction related stress
Depression
Marital stress
1.67
2.13
2.00
2.33
1.65
1.61
0.73
0.58
0.64
0.92
0.64
0.61
1.62
2.14
1.85
2.20
1.34
1.59
0.69
0.63
0.49
0.71
0.41
0.65
0.5
0.1
1.9
1.1
4.3***
0.2
0.0
1.3
0.8
0.4
3.7***
0.1
p50.05;
***
0.5
p50.001.
quite sensitive to their child. Nevertheless, parental sensitivity was also fairly
well distributed, with scores ranging from 1.9 to 5.
In general, mothers and fathers perceptions of their own parents were that of
moderately caring parents, who moderately encouraged their autonomy and
were not highly controlling. In that respect, parents perceptions of their own
mother and father were quite similar. Yet, as shown on the diagonal of the
correlation matrix, presented in Table 2, mothers and fathers perceptions of their
own parents were generally not correlated. Mothers and fathers responses were
positively and significantly correlated on all measures of parenting stress,
depression and marital stress. And, as indicated by the average scores, parents
generally had low levels of parenting stress, depression and marital stress.
Bivariate Analyses
Table 2 presents the correlations between parental sensitivity and all continuous
predictors, and Table 3 presents the means and standard deviations by group
with corresponding test statistics (T or F) for the nominal predictors. Amongst all
considered predictors, four were significantly associated with mothers sensitivity: role restriction, family income, education and single parenthood. The
correlations show that mothers who feel more restricted in their parental role,
those with a higher family income and those with more education have greater
sensitivity for their children than mothers who feel less restricted in their parental
role, have a lower income or less education. Also, single mothers displayed lower
Inf. Child Dev. 12: 2751 (2003)
Fathers
10
11
12
13
14
15
Correlations between parental sensitivity, parent-related, child-related and socioeconomic factors of parental sensitivity
16
17
18
19
20
a
Lower and upper triangle matrices presenting respectively mothers and fathers responses, and diagonal presenting correlations between mothers and fathers
responses. *p50.05; **p50.01.
1 Sensitivity
0.41**0.05 0.19 0.14
0.02
0.02
0.01 0.26* 0.33**0.33**0.27**0.33**0.02 0.05 0.16 0.22* 0.28**0.01 0.34** 0.31**
2 Care : mother
0.06
0.10
0.40** 0.81**0.02
0.09
0.04 0.38**0.23 0.34* 0.11 0.01
0.02
0.12
0.09
0.13
0.18 0.02 0.00
0.16
3 Care: father
0.07
0.24* 0.19
0.87** 0.05
0.10
0.06 0.18 0.06 0.14 0.10 0.23 0.15 0.09
0.10
0.17
0.11 0.06 0.01
0.15
4 Care: 2 parents 0.02
0.81** 0.79** 0.27* 0.01
0.10
0.04 0.33**0.16 0.27* 0.00 0.15 0.10
0.00
0.10
0.18
0.16 0.07 0.01
0.18
5 Autonomy: mo. 0.05
0.49**0.04
0.33**0.16
0.56** 0.87**0.21 0.08 0.16 0.09 0.11
0.07 0.10 0.08 0.14 0.10 0.02 0.05
0.06
6 Autonomy: fa. 0.07
0.11
0.48** 0.37** 0.33** 0.06
0.91**0.08 0.28* 0.20
0.05
0.10
0.13
0.15 0.08 0.21 0.03
0.17 0.16
0.25*
7 Autonomy: 2 p. 0.01
0.40** 0.27** 0.45** 0.83** 0.82**0.08 0.15 0.20 0.20
0.00
0.02
0.12
0.03 0.07 0.19 0.05
0.12 0.08
0.15
8 Control: mother0.02 0.44** 0.01 0.31**0.49**0.18 0.42** 0.25* 0.58** 0.89** 0.16
0.35** 0.18 0.10 0.11 0.10
0.05
0.11 0.20 0.23*
9 Control: father 0.07 0.21* 0.10 0.20* 0.24* 0.35**0.36** 0.42**0.01
0.88** 0.14
0.29** 0.07 0.29**0.12 0.07
0.03 0.03 0.26* 0.40**
10Control: 2 par. 0.07 0.42**0.05 0.34**0.46**0.31**0.48** 0.86** 0.83** 0.19
0.16
0.36** 0.14 0.22* 0.13 0.10
0.04
0.05 0.26* 0.36**
11 Acceptance
0.04 0.09 0.24* 0.20* 0.10 0.36**0.27** 0.04
0.05
0.06
0.53** 0.44** 0.35** 0.32** 0.16
0.11
0.61** 0.11 0.06
0.06
12Adaptability
0.08 0.21* 0.10 0.23* 0.05 0.18 0.17
0.17
0.19
0.23* 0.21* 0.57** 0.34** 0.26* 0.03
0.05
0.22* 0.06 0.14 0.07
13Competence
0.03 0.23* 0.05 0.21* 0.11 0.05 0.12
0.14
0.04
0.13
0.40** 0.36** 0.28** 0.48** 0.02
0.04
0.13
0.22* 0.07
0.10
14Role restriction 0.19* 0.21* 0.12 0.23* 0.00 0.11 0.09
0.14
0.08
0.15
0.29** 0.45** 0.62** 0.43** 0.26* 0.19
0.20
0.05 0.08
0.23*
15Depression
0.14 0.18 0.13 0.22* 0.21* 0.24* 0.29** 0.33** 0.15
0.31** 0.27** 0.23* 0.35** 0.36** 0.24* 0.35** 0.25* 0.02 0.07
0.07
16Marital stress 0.07
0.08
0.03
0.05
0.01 0.01 0.01
0.32** 0.11
0.27** 0.07
0.22* 0.09
0.15
0.32** 0.45** 0.06 0.11 0.12
0.12
17Down synd.
0.13 0.08 0.23* 0.17 0.19 0.25**0.26**0.02 0.10 0.07
0.62**0.05
0.14
0.08
0.20* 0.01 }
0.04 0.01
0.01
18Babys gender 0.18 0.09 0.04 0.11 0.27* 0.07 0.23* 0.11 0.07
0.05
0.05
0.11
0.03 0.06 0.08 0.06
0.05 }
0.03
0.00
19Family income 0.38** 0.05
0.06
0.08
0.06 0.01
0.06 0.06 0.02 0.05
0.12 0.12 0.08
0.07 0.21* 0.00
0.00 0.11 }
0.54**
20Education
0.45** 0.16 0.02
0.11
0.14
0.01
0.11 0.12 0.05 0.11
0.16 0.14
0.01
0.17 0.16 0.03
0.14 0.18* 0.62** 0.45**
21Single parent 0.29**0.04 0.11 0.13 0.07 0.11 0.14 0.02
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.19* 0.10
0.01
0.01 }
0.03
0.12 0.43**0.23*
Mothers
Table 2.
38
D. Pelchat et al.
Inf. Child Dev. 12: 2751 (2003)
39
Table 3. Bivariate relations between parental sensitivity and nominal predictors: Means,
standard deviations and test statistics (T or F)
Mothers
(n = 116)
Child related factors

Gender
Disability
Socio-economic factors
Family income
Education
Single parents
*
p50.05; **p50.01;
Fathers
(n = 84)
S.D.
Test
S.D.
Test
Girls
Boys
DS
CLP
ND
4.06
3.80
3.76
3.94
4.03
0.71
0.71
0.73
0.71
0.74
T(1 1 4) =
1.9
F(2, 113) =
1.2
3.98
3.97
3.73
3.99
4.22
0.61
0.57
0.64
0.59
0.42
T(82) =
0.1
F(2, 81) =
4.6**
Low
Medium
High
Low
Medium
High
Yes
No
3.53
4.21
4.21
3.32
3.93
4.21
3.30
3.98
0.72
0.62
0.51
0.74
0.63
0.60
0.69
0.69
F(2, 113) =
16.0***
3.79
3.93
4.24
3.66
3.93
4.16
}
0.61
0.59
0.46
0.62
0.52
0.60
}
F(2, 81) =
4.6**
F(2, 113) =
16.6***
T(1 1 4) =
3.2**
F(2, 81) =
4.0*
}
***
p50.001.
levels of sensitivity than mothers in dual-parent families. Multiple comparison

tests using a Bonferroni correction established that mothers with a low family
income or a low level of education were significantly less sensitive respectively
than mothers with a medium or high family income, and those having a medium
or high level of education. No measure of ERA, depression, or marital stress was
significantly related to mothers sensitivity.
The sensitivity of fathers was significantly associated with their perceptions of
control by their mother, their father or their two parents, with the stress related to
the acceptance of their child and his adaptability, with their marital stress, their
level of education and family income and with their childs disability. Fathers
who perceived less control from their parents, who felt less stress with respect to
their childs adaptability or the acceptance of their child, fathers with lower levels
of marital stress and fathers with a greater family income or education were more
sensitive to their child than fathers with opposite scores on these variables.
Fathers of children with DS had lower sensitivity scores than fathers of nondisabled children. No significant difference emerged between these two groups
of men and fathers of children with CLP.
Multivariate Analyses
Two model-selection methods were used to derive the most predictive and
parsimonious models of mothers and fathers sensitivity: all possible subsets
regression, and forward entry regression, both using SAS Proc Reg (SAS for Unix,
version 7). All possible subsets regression was used in a first step to identify the
best sets of predictors of parental sensitivity. With this method, all combinations
of predictors are estimated and models are examined and compared on the basis
of their R-square and predictors significance. The retained models were those
Inf. Child Dev. 12: 2751 (2003)
D. Pelchat et al.
40
whose predictors all significantly contributed to parental sensitivity and which

collectively accounted for the greatest proportion of variance in parental
sensitivity. All analyses were conducted separately for mothers and fathers,
with nominal variables previously recoded as series of dummy variables. In a
second step, forward entry regressions were conducted to test, one by one, each
two-way interaction among pairs of predictors retained in the candidate models.
Interactions that could significantly add to the models were retained. The final
models are presented in Table 4. The model for mothers includes two three-level
dummy coded variables}mothers level of education and family income}and
explains 30% of the variance in mothers sensitivity. No other variable nor any
interaction term could significantly contribute to that model and all statistical
assumptions of regression models (i.e. linearity, non-collinearity, and homoscedasticity) were shown to be fully respected. The only model that approached
this one in terms of explained variance included the same dimensions measured
on an ordinal scale, and explained only 25% of the variance in mothers
sensitivity. As shown with the standardised regression coefficients (b), mothers
with a medium family income had significantly higher sensitivity scores than
mothers with a low family income. The difference between mothers of high
income and mothers of low income was in the same direction but marginally
significant (i.e. p50.10). Similarly, mothers with a medium or high level of
education had significantly higher sensitivity scores than mothers with a low
level of education. Such a model closely matches the results found with the
bivariate analyses; the only exception being the absence of Role restriction and
Single parenthood as significant predictors of mothers sensitivity. As will be
discussed below, the associations between these variables and the predictors
retained in the model explains why these variables were not included in the
model.
For fathers, the final model includes four predictors}perception of control by
both parents, childs disability, marital stress and family income (continuous).
The model explains 30% of the variance in fathers sensitivity. Again, no other
variable nor any interaction term could significantly contribute to that model and
all statistical assumptions of regression models were shown to be fully respected.
The standardised regression coefficients show that fathers with higher family
income, with lower levels of marital stress and those who perceived less control
Table 4.
Multiple linear regression models of mothers and fathers sensitivity

B
Variables
Mothers (N = 116)
Fam. Income:
Med.
High
Education:
Med.
High
vs
vs
vs
vs
Low
Low
Low
Low
Fathers (N = 84)
Family income
Disability :
DS vs ND
CLS vs ND
Marital stress
Per. control fr. both parents
se B b
0.49
0.34
0.39
0.64
0.15
0.18
0.17
0.18
0.06
0.39
0.11
0.19
0.31
0.03
0.15
0.14
0.09
0.12
Partial Model Model Model Model

r
d.f.
F
R2
Adj. R2
0.32***
0.20
0.26*
0.44***
0.23*
0.31**
0.10
0.21*
0.27**
4, 111
11.9*** 0.300
0.274
5, 78
60.6*** 0.299
0.254
0.31
0.18
0.22
0.32
0.26
0.29
0.09
0.24
0.29
p50.10; *p50.05; **p50.01;***p50.001.
Inf. Child Dev. 12: 2751 (2003)
41
from their own parents were significantly more sensitive to their children. Also
fathers of children with DS had significantly lower sensitivity scores than fathers
of children with CLP and fathers of non-disabled children. Again, this model
closely matches the results of the bivariate analyses. All predictors retained in the
model were significant correlates of fathers sensitivity in the bivariate analyses,
and among the latter, those that were not retained were strongly correlated with
some of those that were retained.
DISCUSSION
This study examined the effects of a number of factors on the parental sensitivity
of mothers and fathers of 18-month old infants with or without a disability. As
expected, factors from each of the three dimensions of parenting identified by
Belsky (1984) were found to be significantly associated to parental sensitivity:
namely parents perceptions regarding their early relational antecedents,
parenting stress and marital stress among parent-related factors, childs disability
among child-related factors, and family income, level of education and single
parenthood among contextual sources of stress and support. However, these
associations as well as the resulting regression models derived separately for
mothers and fathers revealed markedly different results for mothers and fathers.
For fathers, the resulting model includes four significant predictors of sensitivity:
fathers early relational antecedents, marital stress, Down syndrome in the child,
and family income. For mothers, the model includes only two socio-economic
factors: family income and mothers level of education. These results as well as
their implications for research are discussed next.
Parent-Related Factors
Parents Gender
The first thing to note regarding the effect of parents gender on their
sensitivity is the absence of a difference in parental sensitivity between mothers
and fathers. This contrasts with the results reported in some studies (e.g. Power
and Parke, 1983; Heerman et al., 1994). Yet, the results concord with those of
some well-conducted studies (Dickie, 1987; Broom, 1994). In Dickies study,
mothers and fathers did not differ in parenting competence under conditions
of high marital support; but under conditions of low support, fathers
were significantly less competent than mothers. The fact that most of the
parents in the current study reported relatively low levels of marital stress might
explain this absence of a difference in parental sensitivity between mothers
and fathers. Also, McConnachie and Michell (1985) suggest it is likely that
differences between mothers and fathers are often reported in a context of many
similarities.
But more importantly, our results attest to a large gap between mothers and
fathers in the factors that affect their sensitivity. Such a gap was expected to a
certain degree from Doherty et al.s (1998) review which showed that fathering is
influenced to a greater extent than mothering by various factors in the family,
including the quality of marital relationship, and factors in the community, such
as the rate of unemployment. A number of reasons have been suggested in the
literature to explain such difference between mothers and fathers: for instance
that standards and expectations for fathering are more variable than those for
Inf. Child Dev. 12: 2751 (2003)
42
D. Pelchat et al.
mothering (Doherty et al., 1998), that there is more negotiation in families over
what fathers will do than over what mothers will do (Backett, 1987), or that men
have a less clear job description as fathers than women as mothers (Lewis and
OBrien, 1987). Still, as we will see in the rest of this discussion, other potential
reasons can be considered on a general level, and more specifically with respect
to the factors and results considered here.
Early Relational Antecedents
The hypothesis of an intergenerational transmission of parenting practices
is only partially supported in this study. The parents perception of their
own relationships with their parents, or early relational antecedents are
significantly related to the parental sensitivity of fathers only, and only with
regards to the dimension of control. Fathers who perceived more control from
their parents during their childhood were less sensitive to their children than
fathers who perceived less control from their own parents. These results are
surprising as most studies that found an association between ERA and parenting,
or parental sensitivity, were conducted on samples of mothers (Main and
Golwyn, 1984; Crowell and Feldman, 1988; Haft and Slade, 1989; Van Ijzendoorn
et al., 1991). One likely explanation for these diverging results resides in the
measure of ERA that was used here. Whereas we used the PBI, a measure
developed to assess respondents conscious perceptions of their parents past
behaviours, most of these studies used a measure of ERA based on the type of
attachment mothers still had with their own parents at the time of measurement.
Such measures are usually assessed by the coherence of the mothers discourse
regarding their childhood experiences. Some authors have argued that such
coherence is a better reflection of the true impact of parents developmental
history on their attachment than is the content of the discourse itself (for a full
discussion on the issue, see Main, 1991). This observation led us to question
whether a subtler measure of ERA, such as a coherence-based measure, might
have been more apt to reveal the expected relation between mothers ERA and
their sensitivity. In turn, this would raise the question as to why a content-based
measure such as the PBI is predictive of the sensitivity of fathers and not that of
mothers ?
An interesting line of thought is suggested with one study on the
representations of children in family photo albums (Belleau, 1996) in which
mothers stood out quite differently than fathers in the way they describe their
photos and represent their relationships with their parents. Whereas fathers were
quite descriptive and factual, mothers were much more inclined to continuously
reassess and reconstruct their relationships with their parents on the basis of their
relationships with their own children. This is not surprising when one considers
the central place children have in mothers lives and their concern with the way
they educate them and transmit to them the result of their own experience. These
different ways of mothers and fathers to represent their own parents and possibly
to integrate their ERA could well explain why a coherence-based measure of ERA
might be more predictive of mothers sensitivity, whereas a measure like the PBI
can still be a good predictor of fathers sensitivity. If this were indeed the case,
and our results seem to suggest that, then fathers would be the main transmitters
of the previous generations parenting practices. Mothers would certainly
transmit their parenting practices, but these would be more the fruit of their own
deliberate efforts at integrating their past experiences. Further research would
certainly be needed to test such a hypothesis.
Inf. Child Dev. 12: 2751 (2003)
43
Parenting Stress and Depression

As expected, parenting stress measures were significantly associated
with mothers and fathers sensitivity. For instance, fathers sensitivity was
negatively related to their stress about the acceptance of their child and their
childs adaptability and mothers sensitivity was positively related to their
sense of role restriction. Interestingly, the orientation of this latter association
runs counter to our expectations. It is likely that the association between mothers
sense of role restriction and mothers education level is at stake here.
In that sense, mothers with a greater sense of role restriction would be
more sensitive, not so much because of their sense of restriction, but because
of their higher education level. Nevertheless, none of these associations
between parenting stress and parental sensitivity remained significant in the
final models of parental sensitivity when the other predictors were controlled for.
The strong associations between these parenting stress measures and the retained
predictors can explain these results. For instance, fathers of children with DS
were found to have significantly greater difficulties than other fathers to accept
their children and find them well adapted. The same is true concerning
the reported association between mothers education level and role restriction.
The fact that parenting stress measures did not remain in the models whereas the
type of disabilities or the level of education did can attest to the greater predictive
power of these factors. It could be conceived that the type of disability and the
level of education had an effect on sensitivity in part from their association with
parenting stress.
Contrary to our expectation and to findings of other authors (e.g. Wilfong et al.,
1991; Jameson et al., 1997), depression scores were not significantly related to
mothers or fathers sensitivity. The observed correlations of 0.14 and 0.16 for
mothers and fathers respectively were not significant, although they still were in
the expected direction. As evidenced by the correlations between depression
scores and the other predictors considered in this study, the construct validity of
our measure of depression does not appear to be at stake here. In our view, the
weakness of the association might best be explained by the relatively low levels
of depression scores in our sample.
Marital Stress
As was the case with ERA, marital stress stood out as a significant predictor of
fathers, but not mothers, sensitivity. Again, these results confirm our hypothesis
with respect to fathers, but disconfirms it with respect to mothers. As noted
earlier, a number of studies have given evidence of a negative impact of marital
stress or related construct}and, alternatively, of the positive impact of
harmonious marital relationships and marriages}on both maternal and paternal
sensitivity (i.e. Dickie, 1987; Cox et al., 1999). These findings were at the source of
our hypothesis, although as was also noted, some studies reported contradictory
or opposite findings (e.g. Goldberg and Easterbrooks, 1984; Broom, 1994). Our
results seem to add to the controversy. It should be noted however, that both of
these latter studies had opposite findings with regards to mothers, but not for
fathers. Moreover, a number of studies have reported findings showing that the
quality of fatherchild interaction is more highly correlated with the quality of
the coparental relationship than is true for the motherchild relationship
(Feldman et al., 1983; Dickie, 1987; Belsky and Volling, 1987; Levy-Shiff and
Israelashvili, 1988; Cox et al., 1989). Our results seem to support this claim
specifically with respect to parental sensitivity.
Inf. Child Dev. 12: 2751 (2003)
44
D. Pelchat et al.
Child-Related Factors
Childs Disability
Our results partially confirm the hypothesis of the effect of childrens disability
on parental sensitivity. Of the two disabilities that were examined, DS and CLP,
only DS had an impact on parental sensitivity, and this applied only to fathers.
Fathers of children with DS are less sensitive to their child than fathers of
children with CLP or fathers of non-disabled children. This indicates that a
childs disability does not in itself necessarily lead to a lower parental sensitivity.
Such effect seems to depend on the specific disability being considered as well as
the parent.
It has been shown in a number of studies (i.e. Breslau et al., 1982; Bristol et al.,
1988; Pelchat, et al., 1999) that the severity of a disability can contribute greatly to
the lower adaptation of parents with disabled children. Children with more
severe disabilities are for the parents a greater source of stress and worries; their
care involves a greater burden for them and their efforts are not as readily
rewarded by the childs progress. Such added toll on parents is likely to result in
more parenting stress, more frustrations, and a lower level of adaptation and
well-being, which in turn are likely to be reflected on parents sensitivity for their
child. As disabilities can differ greatly with respect to severity, it seems logical
that parental sensitivity can also differ greatly depending on the specific
disability of the child. With regards to the disabilities considered here, it is
apparent that DS and CLP for 18 month old children differ greatly with respect to
the severity and the charge these disabilities impose on parents. As shown in
another paper (Pelchat et al. 1999), these two groups of parents also greatly differ
with respect to parenting stress. Both mothers and fathers of children with DS
had more difficulties accepting their child than parents of children with CLP or
parents of non-disabled children. No such difference emerged between the latter
and parents of children with CLP.
The fact that such factors finally had an impact on fathers only, and not also on
mothers, is most puzzling however. It is possible that the added stress imposed
by the care of a child with DS and the added psychological distress that results
from it, are more determinant for fathers than they are for mothers. In that sense,
mothers sensitivity for their child would be more unconditional than that of
fathers. It is also possible that fathers react in a particularly negative way to the
lower input of their child or to a disability such as DS. On this last point, the
results of some studies seem to indicate that men are particularly susceptible to
negatively view problems involving cognitive abilities. For instance, Renaud et al.
(1993) have shown that among Canadian physicians concerned with new
reproductive technologies, men were more favourable than women to selective
abortion when DS is diagnosed, whereas no difference emerged between men
and women when more physiological disabilities were involved. Still another
potential reason for the lower sensitivity of fathers of children with DS has to do
with the ability of fathers to decipher the signals of the child. If fathers were to
spend as much time with their child as mothers do, they might be more apt to
learn to understand and be sensitive and responsive to their childrens signals.
Childs Gender
As expected, childs gender was not associated with mothers and fathers
sensitivity. This was confirmed both in the bivariate analyses and in the
regression analyses. These results concord with those of many recent studies and
confirm the absence of effect of young childrens gender on parental sensitivity.
Inf. Child Dev. 12: 2751 (2003)
45
Socio-Economic Factors
As expected, the family income and level of education are both significantly and
strongly associated with mothers and fathers sensitivity. Parents with more
education and a greater family income are more sensitive to their children than
parents with less education and a lower income. This concords with the results
of many studies (i.e. Floyd and Saitzyk, 1992; Onufrak et al., 1995) about
the importance of socio-economic factors on parental practices. Kohn (1977)
proposed that higher social positions are more likely to value self-direction, selfcontrol and responsibility in their children. Such values and attitudes could well
explain the relation between SE factors and parental sensitivity. It can also be
argued that parents who have more education or a higher income have more
resources to help them cope with the stress of rearing a child. They also probably
have more opportunities to attend classes on child rearing and read on the topic.
Yet, the greater impact of SE factors on mothers than on fathers sensitivity is
notable. For mothers, all explained variance in parental sensitivity (30%) was
explained by SE factors. For fathers, family income was one of the factors of
sensitivity, along with the childs disability, marital stress and ERA, and
explained only 8% of the variance in their sensitivity. It might be argued that
income is for mothers a form of support, a way out, an access to resources in a
more important way than it is for fathers. After birth, mothers are more confined
to the house and their maternal responsibilities than fathers. Fathers also have
more possibilities for self-resourcefulness outside the family. That there is a
significant and negative correlation between income and mothers index of
depression and no such correlation for fathers can show some evidence of this.
Moreover, a better income for mothers also implies less stress and daily hassles:
they may have a larger apartment and more toys to play with the child. They are
more likely to work outside and have a babysitter whose help relieves them of
the constant care of the child. Finally, as women usually bear the larger share of
the care of the children, and are usually more preoccupied by child-care, they
may have more susceptible than men to take advantage of their education in
learning about child care and parenting.
Study Limits
The present study has a number of limitations that should be mentioned. First,
although several important factors of parental sensitivity were examined, other
potential factors have not been included in the analyses. For instance, factors
such as the social support of parents (Crockenberg and McCluskey, 1986),
parents personalities (NICHD, 2000), and cognitive factors such as the selfefficacy in parenting (Teti et al., 1996) have been shown elsewhere to have a
significant impact on parental sensitivity. Also, a recent study conducted by the
NICHD (2000) has shown the impact of some mothers characteristics on fathers
sensitivity. Further research and continued efforts with a multivariate approach
should be invested on finding the best set of predictors of mothers and fathers
sensitivity. Also, more efforts should be granted towards a further degree of
modelization with methods such as structural equation modelling (Hayduck,
1987). Such methods could help unravel the complexities of the multiple direct
and indirect associations between the predictors and parental sensitivity. Ideally,
further research should also use a longitudinal design, which would help
ascertain the causality of effects and help understand the proper dynamics of
mothers and fathers sensitivity in time.
Inf. Child Dev. 12: 2751 (2003)
46
D. Pelchat et al.
CONCLUSION
The results of this study emphasise the importance of four types of factors that
clearly stood out as strong predictors of parental sensitivity: parents early
relational antecedents, marital stress, the childs disability and socio-economic
factors. On a general level, this concords with Belskys model of parenting
(1984) about the importance of parent-related factors, child-related factors and
the larger social context. These specific factors were shown to have a markedly
different impact on mothers and fathers sensitivity, which raised many
questions and issues about the proper dynamics of mothers and fathers
sensitivity. A number of hypotheses and lines of explanations were offered on
that matter, but it is clear that many other studies will be needed to unravel the
complexities inherent in the dynamics of parental sensitivity.
REFERENCES
Abidin RR. 1990. Manual for the Parenting Stress Index (3rd edn). Paediatric Psychology
Press; Charlottesville, VA.
Ainsworth MS, Blehar MC, Waters E, Wall S. 1978. Patterns of Attachment: a Psychological
Study of the Strange Situation. Lawrence Erlbaum: NJ.
Ainsworth MS, Bowlby J. 1991. An ethological approach to personality development.
American Psychologist 46: 333341.
Arrindell WA, Van der Ende J. 1984. Replicability and invariance of dimensions of parental
rearing behaviour: further Dutch experiences with the EMBU. Personality and Individual
Differences 5: 671682.
Atkinson L, Scott B, Chisholm V, Blackwell J, Dickens S, Tam F, Goldberg S. 1995. Cognitive
coping, affective distress, and maternal sensitivity: mothers of children with Down
syndrome. Developmental Psychology 31: 668676.
Backett K. 1987. The negotiation of fatherhood. In Reassessing Fatherhood: New Observations
on Fathers and the Modern Family, Lewis C, O Brien M (eds), Sage: Newbury Park, CA.
Barnard KE, Kelly JF. 1990. Assessment of parent-child interaction. In Handbook of Early
Childhood Intervention, Meisels SJ, Shonkoff JP et al. (eds), Cambridge University Press:
New York; 278302.
Barnett RC, Baruch GK. 1987. Determinants of fathers participation in family work.
Journal of Marriage and the Family 49: 2940.
Becker PT, Engelhardt KF, Steinmann MF, Kane J. 1997. Infant age, context, and family
system influences on the interactive behaviours of mothers of infants with mental delay.
Research in Nursing and Health 20: 3950.
Bee HL, Barnard KE, Eyres SJ, Gray CA, Hammond MA, Spietz AL, Snyder C, Clark B.
1982. Prediction of IQ and language skill from perinatal status, child performance, family characteristics and mother-infant interaction. Child Development 53:
11341156.
Belleau H. 1996. Les repr!esentations de lenfant dans les albums de photographies de
famille. [The representations of children in family photo albums]. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Universit!e de Montr!eal.
Belsky J. 1984. The determinants of parenting: a process model. Child Development 55: 83
96.
Belsky J, Gilstrap B, Rovine M. 1984. The Pennsylvania Infant and Family Development
Project: I. Stability and change in mother-infant and father-infant interaction in a family
setting at one, three, and nine months. Child Development 55: 692705.
Belsky J, Volling, BL. 1987. Mothering, fathering, and marital interaction in the family triad
during infancy. In Mens Transition to Parenthood: Longitudinal Studies of Early Family
Experiences, Berman PW, Pedersen FA (eds), Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ; 3763.
Belsky J, Vondra J. 1989. Lessons from child abuse: the determinants of parenting. In Child
maltreatment: Theory and Research on the Causes and Consequences of Child Abuse and Neglect,
Cicchetti D, Carlson V (eds), Cambridge U Press: New York; 153202.
Inf. Child Dev. 12: 2751 (2003)
47
Berger J, Cunningham CC. 1983. Development of early vocal behaviours and interactions in Downs syndrome and nonhandicapped infant-mother pairs. Developmental
Psychology 19: 322331.
Biringen Z. 1990. Direct observation of maternal sensitivity and dyadic interactions in the
home: relations to maternal thinking. Developmental Psychology 26: 278284.
Biringen Z, Robinson JL, Emde RN. 1994. Maternal sensitivity in the second year:
gender-based relations in the dyadic balance of control. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry
64: 7890.
Blair SL, Wenk D, Hardesty C. 1994. Marital quality and paternal involvement:
interconnections of mens spousal and parental roles. Journal of Mens Studies 2: 221237.
Blasco PM, Hrncir EJ, Blasco PA. 1990. The contribution of maternal involvement to
mastery performance in infants with cerebral palsy. Journal of Early Intervention 14:
161174.
Brachfeld-Child S. 1986. Parents as teachers: Comparisons of mothers and fathers
instructional interactions with infants. Infant Behavior and Development 9: 127131.
Breslau N, Prabucki K. 1987. Effects of chronic stress in the family. Archives of General
Psychiatry 44: 10401046.
Breslau N, Staruch KS, Mortimer EA. 1982. Psychological distress in mothers of disabled
children. American Journal of Diseases of Children 136: 682686.
Bretherton I. 1987. New perspectives on attachment relations: Security, communication,
and internal working models. In Handbook of Infant Development, Osofsky JD (ed.), Wiley:
New York; 10611100.
Bretherton I. 1990. Communication patterns, internal working models, and the
intergenerational transmission of attachment relationships. Infant Mental Health Journal
11: 237252.
Bristol MM, Gallagher JJ, Schopler E. 1988. Mothers and fathers of young developmentally
disabled and nondisabled boys: adaptation and spousal support. Developmental
Psychology 24: 441451.
Brooks-Gunn J, Lewis M. 1984. Maternal responsitivity in interactions with handicapped
infants. Child Development 55: 782793.
Broom BL. 1994. Impact of marital quality and psychological well-being on parental
sensitivity. Nursing Research 43: 138143.
Cohn DA, Cowan PA, Cowan CP, Pearson J. 1992. Mothers and fathers working models
of childhood attachment relationships, parenting styles, and child behavior. Development
and Psychopathology 4: 417431.
Cohn J, Matias R, Tronick E, Connell D, Lyons-Ruth K. 1986. Face-to-face interactions of
depressed mothers and their infants. In Maternal Depression and Infant Disturbance: New
Directions for Child Development, Tronick E, Field T (eds), Jossey-Bass: San Francisco;
3145.
Coiro MJ, Emery RE. 1998. Do marriage problems affect fathering more that mothering?
A quantitative and qualitative review. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review 1: 2340.
Cox MJ, Owen MT, Lewis JM, Henderson VK. 1989. Marriage, adult adjustment, and early
parenting. Child Development 60: 10151024.
Cox MJ, Paley B, Payne CC, Burchinal M. 1999. The transition to parenthood: marital
conflict and withdrawal and parent-infant interactions. In Conflict and Cohesion in
Families: Causes and Consequences. The Advances in Family Research Series, Cox M, BrooksGunn J (eds), Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ; 87104.
Crockenberg S, McCluskey K. 1986. Change in maternal behavior during the babys first
year of life. Child Development 57: 746753.
Crowell JA, Feldman SS. 1988. Mothers internal models of relationships and childrens
behavioral and developmental status: a study of mother-child interaction. Child
Development 59: 12731285.
Cummings EM, OReilly AW. 1997. Fathers in family context: effects of marital quality on
child adjustment. In The Role of the Father in Child Development (3rd edn), Lamb ME (ed.).
Wiley: New York; 4965.
Darke PR, Goldberg S. 1994. Fatherinfant interaction and parent stress with healthy and
medically compromised infants. Infant Behavior and Development 17: 314.
Denham SA, Moser MH. 1994. Mothers attachment to infants: relations with infant
temperament, stress, and responsive maternal behavior. Early Child Development and Care
98: 16.
Inf. Child Dev. 12: 2751 (2003)
48
D. Pelchat et al.
Dickie JR. 1987. Interrelationships within the mother-father infant triad. In Mens
Transitions to Parenthood, Perman PW, Pedersen FA (eds), Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ;
113143.
Doherty WJ, Kouneski EF, Erickson MF. 1998. Responsible fathering: an overview and
conceptual framework. Journal of Marriage and the Family 60: 277292.
Eheart BK. 1982. Mother-child interactions with nonretarded and mentally retarded
preschoolers. American Journal of Mental Deficiency 87: 2025.
Eichberg C. 1986. Security of Attachment in Infancy: Contributions of Mothers Representation
of Her Own Experience and Childcare Attitudes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Virginia.
Elder G, Van Nguyen T, Caspi A. 1985. Linking family hardship to childrens lives. Child
Emery RE, Laumann-Billings L. 1998. An overview of the nature, causes, and consequences
of abusive family relationships. Toward differentiating maltreatment and violence.
American Psychologist 53: 121135.
Farran DC, Kasari C, Comfort M, Jay S. 1986. Parent/Caregiver Involvement Scale.
Unpublished rating scale. Available from D. Farran, Center for the Development of
Early Education, Kapalama Heights, Honolulu, Hawaii, 96817.
Feldman SS, Nash SC, Aschenbrenner BG. 1983. Antecedents of fathering. Child
Development 54: 1628-1636.
Fish B. 1993. Meaning and attachment in mothers and toddlers. Child and Adolescent Social
Work Journal 10: 177188.
Floyd FJ, Saitzyk AR. 1992. Social class and parenting children with mild and moderate
mental retardation. Journal of Pediatric Psychology 17: 607631.
Gecas V. 1979. The influence of social class on socialization. In Contemporary Theories
About the Family, Burr W, Hill R, Nye RI, Reiss I (Eds), Free Press: New York;
365404.
Gelfand DM, Teti DM. 1990. The effects of maternal depression on children. Clinical
Psychology Review 10: 329353.
Gerson K. 1993. No Mans Land: Mens Changing Commitments to Family and Work. Basic
Books: New York.
Girolametto L, Tannock R. 1994. Correlates of directiveness in the interactions of fathers
and mothers of children with developmental delays. Journal of Speech and Hearing
Research 37: 11781192.
Goldberb WA, Easterbrooks MA. 1984. Role of marital quality in toddler development.
Developmental Psychology 20: 504514.
Graham MV. 1987. An ecological analysis of face-to-face interaction between parent and
infant. (Doctoral dissertation. University of Texas at Austin, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts
International 47: 3293B.
Grossman FK, Eichler L, Winickoff S. 1980. Pregnancy, Birth, and Parenthood: Adaptations of
Mothers, Fathers, and Infants. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.
Grossman FK, Pollack WS, Golding E. 1988. Fathers and children: predicting the quality
and quantity of fathering. Developmental Psychology 35: 893903.
Haft WL, Slade A. 1989. Affect attunement and maternal attachment: a pilot study. Special
Issue: internal representations and parent-infant relationships. Infant Mental Health
Journal 10: 157172.
Hanzlik JR. 1989. Interactions between mothers and their infants with developmental disabilities: analysis and review. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics
9: 3347.
Harris KM, Morgan SP. 1991. Fathers, sons, and daughters: differential paternal
involvement in parenting. Journal of Marriage and the Family 53: 531544.
Harrison MJ, Magill-Evans J. 1996. Mother and father interactions over the first year with
term and preterm infants. Research in Nursing and Health 19: 451459.
Hayduck LA. 1987. Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL. Essentials and Advances. Johns
Hopkins U. Press: London.
Heermann JA, Jones LC, Wikoff RL. 1994. Measurement of parent behavior during
interactions with their infants. Infant Behavior and Development 17: 311321.
Huntington GS, Simeonsson RJ, Bailey DB Jr, Comfort M. 1987. Handicapped child
characteristics and maternal involvement. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology
5: 105118.
Inf. Child Dev. 12: 2751 (2003)
49
Hyche JK, Bakeman R, Adamson LB. 1992. Understanding communication cues of infants
with Down Syndrome: effects of mothers experience and infants age. Journal of Applied
Ilfeld FW. 1976. Further validation of a psychiatric symptom index in a normal population.
Psychological Report 39: 12151228.
Isabella RA. 1993. Origins of attachment: Maternal interactive behaviour across the first
year. Child Development 64: 605621.
Jameson PB, Gelfand DM, Kulcsar E, Teti DM. 1997. Mother-toddler interaction patterns
associated with maternal depression. Developmental Psychopathology 9: 537550.
Kohn ML. 1977. Class and Conformity: A Study in Values (2nd edn). University of Chicago
Press: Chicago.
Lacharit!e C, Ethier L, Pich!e C. 1992. Le stress parental chez les m"eres denfants d#age
pr!escolaire: validation et normes qu!eb!ecoises pour linventaire de stress parental
[Parental stress in mothers of preschool children: validation and Quebec norms for the
parental stress inventory]. Sant!e Mentale au Qu!ebec 17: 183204.
Lamb ME (ed.) 1997. The Role of the Father in Child Development, (3rd edn). Wiley: Toronto.
Lamb ME, Laumann-Billings LA. 1997. Fathers of children with special needs. In The Role
of the Father in Child Development, (3rd edn) Lamb ME (ed.), Wiley: Toronto; 177190.
Levy-Shiff R, Israelashvili R. 1988. Antecedents of fathering: Some further exploration.
Lewis C, OBrien M. 1987. Constraints on fathers: research, theory an clinical practice. In
Reassessing Fatherhood: New Observations on Fathers and the Modern Family, Lewis C,
OBrien M (eds), Sage: Newbury Park, CA; 119.
Main M. 1991. Metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive monitoring, and singular
(coherent) vs. multiple (incoherent) model of attachment. Findings and directions for
future research. In Attachment across the Life Cycle, Parkes CM, Stevenson-Hinde J, Marris
P (eds), Routledge: London; 127159.
Main M, Goldwyn R. 1984. Predicting rejection of her infant from mothers representation
of her own experience: implications for the abused-abusing intergenerational cycle.
Special Issue: Infant mental health}from theory to intervention. Child Abuse and Neglect
8: 203217.
Main M, Kaplan N, Cassidy J. 1985. Security in infancy, childhood, and adulthood: a move
to the level of representation. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development
50: 66104.
McCollum JA. 1988. Parent playfulness: A case study of infant twins with handicaps. Child:
Care, Health and Development 14: 235253.
McConachie H. 1989. Mothers and fathers interaction with their young mentally
handicapped children. International Journal of Behavioral Development 12: 239255.
McConachie H, Mitchell DR. 1985. Parents teaching their young mentally handicapped
children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 26: 389405.
McKay J, Pickens J, Stewart A. 1996. Inventoried and observed stress in parent-child
interactions. Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social 15: 223234.
Murphy E, Brewin CR, Silka L. 1997. The assessment of parenting using the Parental
Bonding Instrument: Two of three factors ? Psychological Medicine 27: 333342.
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. 2000. Factors associated with fathers
caregiving activities and sensitivity with young children, Journal of Family Psychology 14:
200219.
Nicholls A, Kirkland J. 1996. Maternal sensitivity: A review of attachment literature
definitions. Early Child Development and Care 120: 5565.
Nover A, Shore MF, Timberlake EM, Greenspan SI. 1984. The relationship of maternal
perception and maternal behavior: a study of normal mothers and their infants.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 54: 210223.
Onufrak B, Saylor CF, Taylor MJ, Eyberg SM, Boyce GB. 1995. Determinants of
responsiveness in mothers of children with intraventricular hemorrhage. Journal of
Pediatric Psychology 20: 587599.
Parker G, Tupling H, Brown LB. 1979. A parental bonding instrument. British Journal of
Medical Psychology 52: 110.
Pelchat, D. 1993. Developing an early stage intervention program to help families
cope with the effects of the birth of a handicapped child. Family Systems Medicine 11:
407424.
Inf. Child Dev. 12: 2751 (2003)
50
D. Pelchat et al.
Pelchat D, Bisson J, Ricard N, Bouchard JM, Perreault M, Saucier JF, Lefebvre H.

1998. Effets longitudinaux dun programme dintervention infirmi"ere familiale syst!emique
sur ladaptation des familles suite a" la naissance dun enfant avec une d!eficience. [Longitudinal effects of a family systems nursing intervention program on the adaptation
of families after the birth of a child with a disability.] Research Report Presented
to the National Health Research and Development Program of Canada, Ottawa,
Canada.
Pelchat D, Ricard N, Bouchard JM, Perreault M, Saucier JF, Berthiaume M, Bisson J. 1999.
Adaptation of parents in relation to their six monthold infants type of disability. Child:
Care, Health and Development 25: 377398.
Petersen GA, Sherrod KB. 1982. Relationship of maternal language to language
development and language delay of children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency
86: 391398.
Pleck JH. 1997. Paternal involvement: levels, sources, and consequences. In The Role of the
Father in Child Development, Lamb ME (ed.), Wiley: New York; 66103.
Power TG. 1985. Mother- and father-infant play: a developmental analysis. Child
Power TG, Parke RD. 1983. Patterns of mother and father play with their 8-month-old
infant: A multiple analyses approach. Infant Behavior and Development 6: 453459.
Pr!eville M, Boyer R, Potvin L, Perrault C, L!egar!e G. 1992. Enqu#ete Sant!e Qu!ebec 87}La
d!etresse psychologique: D!etermination de la fiabilit!e et de la validit!e de la mesure utilis!ee dans
lenqu#ete sant!e Qu!ebec. [The Quebec Health Survey 1987Reliability and validity of the
measure of psychological distress used in the QHS-87.] Gouvernement du Qu!ebec,
Minist"ere de la Sant!e et des Services sociaux: Montr!eal, Canada.
Renaud M, Bouchard L, Bisson J, Labadie JF, Dallaire L, Kishchuk N. 1993. Canadian
physicians facing prenatal diagnosis: prudence and ambivalence. In the Studies
Collection of the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies, vol. 13,
Current Practice of Prenatal Diagnosis in Canada. Ottawa, Canada; 259547.
Richard NB. 1986. Interaction between mothers and infants with Down syndrome: infant
characteristics. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 6: 5471.
Rogers PT, Roizen NJ. 1991. A life-cycle approach to management of Down syndrome. In
Developmental Disabilities in Infancy and Childhood, Capute AJ, Accardo PJ (eds), Brookes:
Baltimore, MD; 441454.
Rondal JA. 1980. Fathers and mothers speech in early language development. Journal of
Child Language 7: 353369.
Seifer R, Schiller M, Sameroff AJ, Resnick S, Riordan K. 1996. Attachment, maternal
sensitivity, and infant temperament during the first year of life. Developmental Psychology
32: 1225.
Simons RL, Beaman J, Conger RD, Chao W. 1993. Childhood experience, conceptions of
parenting, and attitudes of spouse as determinants or parental behavior. Journal of
Marriage and the Family 55: 91106.
Simons RL, Lorenz FO, Conger RD, Wu C. 1992. Support from spouse as mediator and
moderator of the disruptive influence of economic strain of parenting. Child Development
63: 12821301.
Smith PB, Pederson DR. 1988. Maternal sensitivity and patterns of infant-mother
attachment. Child Development 59: 10971101.
Stoneman Z, Brody GH, Abbott D. 1983. In-home observations of young Down syndrome
children with their mothers and fathers. American Journal of Mental Deficiency 87:
591600.
Tendland J. 1996. Le d!eveloppement de lenfant n!e pr!ematur!ement: lien avec la sant!e p!erinatale, les
pr!eoccupations maternelles et la relation m"ere/enfant [The development of the premature
child: relation to perinatal health, mothers concerns, and the mother/child relation].
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universit!e Laval, Canada.
Teti DM, OConnell MA, Reiner CD. 1996. Parenting sensitivity, parental depression and
child health: The mediational role of parental self-efficacy. Early Development and
Parenting 5: 237250.
Tulananda O, Young DM, Roopnarine JL. 1994. Thai and American fathers involvement
with preschool-age children. Early Child Development and Care 97: 123133.
Van Ijzendoorn MH, Kranenburg MJ, Zwart-Woudstra HA, Van Busschbach AM,
Lambermon MWE. 1991. Parental attachment and childrens socio-emotional development:
Inf. Child Dev. 12: 2751 (2003)
51
Some findings on the validity of the adult attachment interview in the Netherlands.
International Journal of Behavioral Development 14: 375394.
Vereijken CMJL, Riksen-Walraven JM, Kondo-Ikemura K. 1997. Maternal sensitivity and
infant attachment security in Japan: A longitudinal study. International Journal of
Behavioral Development 21: 3549.
Volling BL, Belsky J. 1992. Infant, father, and marital antecedents of infant-father
attachment security in dual-earner and single-earner families. International Journal of
Behavioral Development 15: 83100.
Wasserman GA, Allen R. 1985. Maternal withdrawal from handicapped toddlers. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines 26: 381387.
Waters E, Wippman J, Sroufe LA. 1979. Attachment, positive affect, and competence in the
peer group: Two studies in construct validation. Child Development 50: 821829.
Webster-Stratton C. 1990. Stress: A potential disruptor of parent perceptions and family
interactions. Special Issue: the stresses of parenting. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology
19: 302312.
Whipple EE, Richey CA. 1997. Crossing the line from physical discipline to child abuse:
how much is too much? Child Abuse and Neglect 21: 431444.
Wilfong EW, Saylor C, Elksin N. 1991. Influences on responsiveness: interactions between
mothers and their premature infants. Infant Mental Health Journal 12: 3140.
Inf. Child Dev. 12: 2751 (2003)

Parental Sensitive

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Parental Sensitive

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Infant and Child Development

Inf. Child Dev. 12: 2751 (2003)

The Effects of Early Relational

Universit!e de Montr!eal, Facult!e des Sciences Infirmi"eres, C.P. 6128, Succ.

This study examines the effect of early relational antecedents

Parental sensitivity is broadly defined as the parents ability to perceive,

Inf. Child Dev. 12: 2751 (2003)

Factors of Mothers and Fathers Sensitivity

Inf. Child Dev. 12: 2751 (2003)

Inf. Child Dev. 12: 2751 (2003)

Factors of Mothers and Fathers Sensitivity

Inf. Child Dev. 12: 2751 (2003)

Inf. Child Dev. 12: 2751 (2003)

Factors of Mothers and Fathers Sensitivity

Inf. Child Dev. 12: 2751 (2003)

play sequence. Eleven types of parental behaviours are assessed: physical

Inf. Child Dev. 12: 2751 (2003)

Factors of Mothers and Fathers Sensitivity

overprotected. In their initial study, the authors reported evidence of a two-factor

Inf. Child Dev. 12: 2751 (2003)

Inf. Child Dev. 12: 2751 (2003)

Factors of Mothers and Fathers Sensitivity

Table 1. Mean and standard deviations on sensitivity and continuous predictors by

Inf. Child Dev. 12: 2751 (2003)

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Inf. Child Dev. 12: 2751 (2003)

Factors of Mothers and Fathers Sensitivity

Child related factors

levels of sensitivity than mothers in dual-parent families. Multiple comparison

Inf. Child Dev. 12: 2751 (2003)

whose predictors all significantly contributed to parental sensitivity and which

Multiple linear regression models of mothers and fathers sensitivity

Partial Model Model Model Model

p50.10; *p50.05; **p50.01;***p50.001.

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Inf. Child Dev. 12: 2751 (2003)

Factors of Mothers and Fathers Sensitivity

Inf. Child Dev. 12: 2751 (2003)

Inf. Child Dev. 12: 2751 (2003)

Factors of Mothers and Fathers Sensitivity

Parenting Stress and Depression

Inf. Child Dev. 12: 2751 (2003)

Inf. Child Dev. 12: 2751 (2003)

Factors of Mothers and Fathers Sensitivity

Inf. Child Dev. 12: 2751 (2003)

Inf. Child Dev. 12: 2751 (2003)

Factors of Mothers and Fathers Sensitivity

Inf. Child Dev. 12: 2751 (2003)

Inf. Child Dev. 12: 2751 (2003)

Factors of Mothers and Fathers Sensitivity

Inf. Child Dev. 12: 2751 (2003)

Pelchat D, Bisson J, Ricard N, Bouchard JM, Perreault M, Saucier JF, Lefebvre H.

Inf. Child Dev. 12: 2751 (2003)

Factors of Mothers and Fathers Sensitivity

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Inf. Child Dev. 12: 2751 (2003)

Você também pode gostar

p50.10; p50.05; p50.01;p50.001.